Case law

Thomas v. Lehman

158 P.3d 86 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 15, 2007

Clearly, the Legislature did not intend inmates to have unfettered, immediate access to their wages during their incarceration. C. … Neither absolute nor qualified immunity extends to § 1983 suits for declaratory relief such as this one. See, e.g., Orellana v.

Sayan v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

43 Wash. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 26, 1986

He urges on us an argument accepted by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, that the words "legally entitled to recover" in that state's UMC statute "mean simply that the plaintiff must be able to establish fault on the part of … Clearly, the phrase "legally entitled to recover", without more, conjures up two equally reasonable concepts.

Steven Jewels v. City Of Bellingham

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 21, 2014

Recreational use immunity is an affirmative defense that must be established by the landowner. Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., Wn.2d , 317 P.3d 987, 991 (2014). … The statute was clearly intended to modify the common law. Van Pinter, 121 Wn.2d at 41-42; Pavis, 144 Wn.2d at 615-16; Camicia, 317 P.3d at 992.

Swanson v. McKain

59 Wash. App. 303 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 17, 1990

We conclude from these authorities that the significant factor which establishes an entrant upon real property as a business visitor, for purposes of qualifying that person as *309 an invitee, is whether the entrant was invited … The rationale for the court's imposition of a duty to warn of natural conditions in Tarshis clearly stemmed from the plaintiff's status as an invitee of the hotel.

Gontmakher v. the City of Bellevue

85 P.3d 926 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 1, 2004

Because the communication was made to a private newspaper, RCW 4.24.510 clearly did not apply. … Additionally, because RCW 4.24.510 clearly did not apply because the communication was not to a governmental agency, analyzing whether the statute excludes immunity for governmental entities was not central to the court's

Karr v. State

53 Wash. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 19, 1988

It was clearly stated in the USGS material that an avalanche represented the most serious potential hazard posed by the volcano. … If all four questions can be clearly and unequivocally answered in the affirmative, then the act or decision can be classified as a discretionary governmental function and nontortious.

Flying T Ranch, Inc., V. Stillaguamish Tribe Of Indians

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 4, 2024

In the absence of comprehensive legislation by Congress regulating tribal sovereign immunity, the United States Supreme Court has upheld tribal sovereign immunity for claims for which the FSIA clearly waived foreign nations … It is clearly necessary that the territorial sovereign reserve the authority to determine title disputes notwithstanding a foreign putative owner’s claims of immunity, because the operation of the local action rule would

Eastham v. Arndt

28 Wash. App. 524 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 2, 1981

The witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself—his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. … Ct. 438 , 19 A.L.R.2d 378 ] (1951), and to require him to answer if "it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken." Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892, 899 (1881).

Cannabis Action Coalition v. City of Kent

180 Wash. App. 455 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 31, 2014

E2SSB 5073, § 102. ¶7 As drafted by the legislature, E2SSB 5073 established a state-run registry system for qualified patients and providers. … affirmative defenses for a qualifying patient or designated provider who is- not registered with the registry established in section 901.

Public Utility District No. 1 Of Snohomish Co., Apps V. State Of Wa, Resps

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 5, 2023

The Timber Sale Map reveals sale boundary tags along the RMZ near Sultan Basin Road and establishes that the RMZ is not part of the sale area. … The State established through Moon’s uncontroverted expert testimony that the RMZ was the width required by the HCP.

Shinaberger ex rel. Campbell v. LaPine

109 Wash. App. 304 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 26, 2001

Second, the words “reasonably necessary’ qualify RCW *309 10.14.030 (4)(c). … The statute’s plain language does not support the District’s claim of per se immunity in this case.

Barry v. USAA

98 Wash. App. 199 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 9, 1999

Even privileged communications may be discoverable, however, if they qualify for the fraud exception. Escalante, 49 Wn. App. at 394 . … Washington courts recognize no work product immunity for documents prepared in the regular course of *208 business. Escalante, 49 Wn. App. at 395 .

State v. Decker

68 Wash. App. 246 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 31, 1992

Escoto , at 7 (quoting RCW 13.40.140(8)). *250 Escoto clearly sanctions the use of presentencing psychological evaluations in noncapital juvenile cases. See Escoto, at 6-7. … We conclude that the law established by cases dealing with presentencing interviews should be applied to the present case.

Department of Revenue v. Nord Northwest Corp.

164 Wash. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 17, 2011

Under Washington law, a real property title transfer does not always establish property ownership. … While the parties clearly intended Nord to *234 control the development project and sought tax advantages, the record indicates they intended the LLCs, as separate entities, to own the properties. ¶40 Based on the reasons

In Re the Marriage of Parker

91 Wash. App. 219 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 26, 1998

Caron, 142 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998) (plethysmograph test of professional licensee was not, under the circumstances, so unreasonable as to establish a violation of “clearly established” law for purposes of piercing qualified … immunity in a civil rights suit.). 14 See, e.g., Gentry v.

Miller v. City of Port Angeles

38 Wash. App. 904 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 19, 1984

A need for the improvements was clearly demonstrated, directly related to the traffic which would be generated by the development. The City acted reasonably to meet that need. … We believe that is what the City intended, but condition l.b does not clearly say so. Paragraph 6 provided: *912 vi.

Michael Lang, Res/cross-app.. V. Platinum Nine Holdings, Llc, Apps/cross-res.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 28, 2025

In contrast here, RCW 18.71.210 provides qualified immunity only to those “rendering emergency medical service.” It does not grant immunity for non- emergency services. … Use of Gurney Restraints NWA next claims that EMTs’ use of a gurney and gurney restraints is clearly an “emergency medical procedure” to which immunity applies.

State v. Matson

22 Wash. App. 114 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 6, 1978

Walker, 82 Wn.2d 851 , 514 P.2d 919 (1973) established that a showing that the defendant was an agent solely of the purchaser and not of the seller in a drug transaction was a defense to prosecution under the uniform narcotic … An examination of this statute clearly leads to the conclusion that the making of a motion to grant immunity *120 must be left to the discretion of the State's representative.

Vergeson v. Kitsap County

145 Wash. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 1, 2008

No matter how reasonable, Vergeson’s unspoken expectation that her quashed warrant would be removed from the databases does not qualify as an express assurance for purposes of establishing this special relationship exception … Although Vergeson does not argue that she established privity with the County through the judge issuing the warrant-quashing order, we note that a judge’s acts, performed within his or her employment capacity, are immune

Emmerson v. Weilep

110 P.3d 214 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 12, 2005

Weilep points out the text of RCW 4.24.510 expressly provides for immunity from "civil liability," as opposed to immunity from a civil action for damages, its meaning must be construed in the context of the statutory scheme … Here, the legislative purpose gives qualifying parties immunity from "civil action[s] for damages," (RCW 4.24.500) and the statutory intent language discusses liability in terms of a "civil complaint or counterclaim ... on